The Clearing House Association, along with SIFMA, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Microsoft's position that the Supreme Court should overturn the Federal Circuit's clear and convincing evidentiary standard, which applies when a defense of patent invalidity rests on documentary evidence that was not considered by the PTO, in favor of a more flexible and practical rule that would permit evidence not previously considered in order to more easily weed out “junk” patents. The brief argues that the financial-services industry is disparately impacted by the Federal Circuit’s evidence standard because patents are still new to the industry and that many patents are thus granted despite the existence of invalidating evidence that was either not brought before, or not considered by, the PTO during examination. On June 9, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Microsoft v. i4i in holding that “clear and convincing” evidence is required to prove invalidity of a patent, but allowed that patent case juries can be instructed that they have heard evidence that was never seen by the patent examiner and that juries may take such evidence into consideration when deciding patent validity, thereby making it easier to meet the “clear and convincing” standard.